Are divorced/remarried people really being denied communion? Why so much emphasis on this issue?

[HelenRose]

I am sure that most of you have seen the speculation and debates about whether Catholics who are civilly divorced (without an annulment) and then civilly remarried should be allowed to receive communion. As I understand it, Catholic teaching says that such persons should not receive holy communion because they are objectively living in a gravely sinful situation (i.e., an adulterous relationship), and no one who is in a state of mortal sin should receive communion. (Canon 915 is probably relevant here as well.) It would not even help for a person in such a situation to go to confession, unless he has the intent of ceasing the adulterous relationship (either breaking off the second marriage completely, or perhaps living as brother and sister), because it does no good to be sorry for a sin that you have no intention to stop committing. So far, so good, right?

But in actual practice, if a person is divorced (without annulment) and civilly remarried, what is stopping him from receiving communion if he decides in his own conscience to do so? (Please note I am not saying that such a person SHOULD decide to receive communion – in fact, he should not.)

First, the pastor or other Eucharistic minister may not even know that this person is divorced and remarried. For example, my wife and I are validly married, with no prior marriages. But we have moved more than once since our marriage, and no pastor at any parish we have attended has ever asked to see proof that we are validly married. If we were in an invalid marriage, there is no way that our pastor would know.

Second, if the pastor does know that the person is invalidly married, will he really refuse to distribute communion to that person during Mass, if the person presents himself? This seems unlikely to me, at least in most parishes that I have attended.

Third, even in the unlikely event that the pastor does refuse to distribute communion to a divorced/remarried person, what is to stop that person from attending Mass and receiving communion at a different parish?

At least in my experience, there simply is no process for verifying that people are in the proper state in life to receive communion. The assumption is that the individual has the responsibility for discerning whether or not he is in a state of grace, and thus allowed to receive communion.

So given what I have said here, why are people making such a big deal over this issue? Are there really places where people are effectively barred from communion for being divorced (without annulment) and remarried? Or is this just a convenient excuse for people to try to undermine the church’s teaching on marriage and on the Eucharist?

You are right. There is no one standing in front of the lines inspecting qualifications.

What I am about to say is strictly my opinion and probably not worth a whole lot but here goes anyway. People know when they are in the wrong and they want to feel justified in their behavior. Sure they could go and receive communion but what they really want is to be told that what they are doing is not wrong but perfectly all right.

Even if the Church were to make receiving an annulment much easier and simpler, many of these same couples will not want to take the time and bother to ask. They will want it served to them on a silver platter. I think in many situations the main motivation is to simply prove a point.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: As I understand it, Catholic teaching says that such persons should not receive holy communion because they are objectively living in a gravely sinful situation (i.e., an adulterous relationship), and no one who is in a state of mortal sin should receive communion.

…if a person is divorced (without annulment) and civilly remarried, what is stopping him from receiving communion if he decides in his own conscience to do so?
…what is to stop that person from attending Mass and receiving communion at a different parish?

…if the pastor does know that the person is invalidly married, will he really refuse to distribute communion to that person during Mass, if the person presents himself?
…Are there really places where people are effectively barred from communion for being divorced (without annulment) and remarried?

…why are people making such a big deal over this issue?
…Or is this just a convenient excuse for people to try to undermine the church’s teaching on marriage and on the Eucharist?

Yes, you are correct. Sometimes a bishop will excommunicate a public figure for voting record, for example, on abortion. It may be too difficult to remember, for a priest. The faithful themselves, may misunderstand, so understanding of the teaching of the Church on scandal and mortal sin would help. The ignorant that willfully neglect learning the teaching of the Church will be culpable. I think some of the people want the Church to admit second or third marriages like the Orthodox do.

*Baltimore Catechism:*368. Does he who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receive the body and blood of Christ and His graces?

 He who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receives the body and blood of     Christ, but he does not receive His graces and commits a grave sin of sacrilege. 
 (a) To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and     blood of the Lord, and therefore a sacrilege.

Familiaris Consortio*e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

1. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

[JimG]

I think I can give you am answer but the answer need to go back in history. Any years ago in the fifties if I am correct. In most civilization Divorce without a very good cause was forbiden. A push to introduce no fault divorce was created at that time the catholic church opposes no fault divorce on the grounds that it was going to destroy the natural family and it was going to have a negative impact on marriage. At that time the answer of promoters of no fault divorce was no one is forcing churches to grant divorces. It is just civil divorce. The churches are not requires to follow it. It is a state secular legal matter and it should be accepted. Having the ability to obtain a divorce is not going to affect no one else’s marriages, etc. Etc. Etc. In the end no faultbdivirce wins and is practically introduced all over the world. However the catholic church still refuses to accept. There is no divorce in the church. Secular society told the church but don’t worry…no one is going to force churches to accept divorces. In fact if anyone ever pushes for the church to accept divorce we all be against it. ( any familiarity with current situation is not a coincidence).

So years passed and people who unfortunately suffer from amnesia became used to the idea of no fault divorce and started forgetting that once in time The church was opposed to it but it was told no one is going to ever push you to accept divorce. Simply people forgot about it. Over time other worst issues came over the table: abortion, cohabitation, contraception, WTC until now that same sex marriage came on the table. By the time we got SSM almost everyone has forgoted about how divorce came to be and the church is so focused on these other more current issues that voila! The perfect time to push what it was promised that wasn’t going to push …has arrived. So the anti life movement takes back it original weapon that open their road for everything else and (now that no one remembers) divorce and remarriage and starts pushing the church to change its doctrine. That is why it is being done.

Simple there is an anti life movent that wants the church to change its policies on abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc. But they cannot go face to face to push the church to do it because it would be too shocking and there would be massive resistance to it. So what they do is through a very long term plan they little by little start pushing things in society in a very subtle way so it becomes accepted and by the time everyone gets so used to it, then they start pushing the church to change its doctrine.

That is exactly what is happening with the church and divorce/remarriage. It was successfully introduced a long time ago and by now everyone sees it solo common that if they attempt to get the church to change its position on it not to many will oppose.

Yes, this is exactly right. The acceptance of divorce effectively changed the meaning of marriage in the public mind. It changed its meaning from one of permanence, fidelity, and family formation, to one of impermanence, optional fidelity, optional children. That is why Catholics today have a hard time wrapping their mind around the Church’s teaching on marriage. It is why marriage has fallen on hard times; it is why the young are less apt to marry now.